Seegmiller et al v. 3M Company et al

Filing 106

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS RESPONSE TO THE COURTS ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Judge John F. Walter. The Court now orders Plaintiffs to file a Response to the Court's OSC on or before September 4, 2024. Specifically, Plaintiffs should address whether they waive any claims to which a federal contractor defense could apply. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS.) (rolm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No.

CV 24-6755-JFW(SSCx)

Title:

Daniel Seegmiller, et al. -v- 3M Company, et al.

Date: August 30, 2024

PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO
THE COURT’S ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On July , 2024, Plaintiffs Daniel Seegmiller and Ann Seegmiller (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed
a Complaint against approximately forty defendants in Los Angeles Superior Court (“LASC”).
Docket No. 1-1. On August 9, 2024, Defendant Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor by
merger to Buffalo Pumps, Inc. (“Buffalo Pumps”) filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Docket No. 1. On August 19,
2024, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”), ordering Buffalo Pumps to demonstrate
why the Court should not remand this action to LASC for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Docket
No. 29. On August 26, 2024, Buffalo Pumps filed its Response. See Docket No. 79, 82, 87-89.
The Court now orders Plaintiffs to file a Response to the Court’s OSC on or before
September 4, 2024. Specifically, Plaintiffs should address whether they waive any claims to which
a federal contractor defense could apply. See, e.g., Long v. 3M Company, 2024 WL 866 819 (Jan.
31, 2024) (granting motion to remand and concluding “that [the plaintiff’s] explicit waiver [of any
claims stemming from exposure while working on Navy, Coast Guard, or United States
government-commissioned vessels] came after the removal does not undermine its
effectiveness”). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that:
Federal Courts lack jurisdiction over this action; removal is therefore improper.
Specifically, removal based on diversity jurisdiction is unavailing due to the presence
of a Defendant that resides in California. In addition, no claim of admiralty or
maritime law is raised, Plaintiffs sue no foreign state or agency, and Defendants lack
a colorable federal defense that would warrant removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1442(a)(1).
Complaint, ¶ 11. Based on paragraph 11 of the Complaint, the Court cannot determine if Plaintiffs
intended to waive any claims to which a federal contractor defense could apply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 1 of 1

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr